Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Sony NEX range

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2010 - 3:04 PM


Quote: Canikon don't put IS into shorter lenses for obvious reasons

Yes they do 18-55 IS, 15-85 IS tested @ 4 stops Nikon also offer an IS 18-55 . If you want tests on IS capability I saw some on the Sigma 150-500 with a choice of in-lens and in-camera IS and the in-lens was judged to be better, will look for it. Its not that in-body does not work, just that with the longer lens you also have stability of AF point on subject issues also.

But back to the new Sonys well done for them giving an interesting entry level camera solution. there are some advantages at the entry level for this, but it is not so great for further up the range as they loose 2/3 of the light to the AF sensor and 1/3 of the light to the sensor plus there is another optical item between the lens and sensor. So it is not looking like a good solution for the A700/900 cameras. But that may not be high on Sony's worry list.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
25 Aug 2010 - 3:04 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
25 Aug 2010 - 7:37 PM

I'd still like to see a side-by-side test of these systems using the same lens focal length and the same subject distance - and preferably without the judges knowing which is taken by which system. I've seen too many comments by DPR about in-body IS not being as good as in-lens IS to rely on their impartiality.

The pellicle cameras lose 30% of the light (about 1/2 a stop) but that's being compensated for by the way sensors are getting more sensitive. They also don't suffer from mirror shake and I'd guess that the geometry of the camera can be made more accurately without a moving mirror so maybe FF/BF will be not so much of an issue. There's another optical item in the light path but that applies to in-lens stabilisation too and no one seems to complain about that degrading IQ. The ultimate test is whether it works or not and when people start using them we'll find out. I reckon the days of the reflex mirror are numbered - it would never have been invented at all if the first interchangeable lens cameras had been digital.

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2010 - 10:37 PM

The IS lenses tend to float some elements so no extra optical parts if it is designed well. Also it is an integral part of the lens performance, not an extra item added on later.

As for back to back, well you can spot an IS lens when you use it as it damps what you see in the viewfinder so any human judge knows which is which. A truly subjective free test is hard to set up I can think of a few with the camera on a known moving platform taking pictures of a fixed subject at fixed time intervals. But it is all academic as I know that as you head past 200mm the benefit of stabilising the viewfinder and AF points is a big advantage alone. And for video there are clear advantages of in-lens IS. Sony themselves would look to agree as they designed the NEX range to have in-lens IS when they had freedom to design a non-Minolta lens mount. Panasonic have also gone this way.

On optical V's EVF so far I find the EVF is not so good when you are moving it is all down to frame rate etc. as you start to pan it tends to go wrong then there is the speed of response to light changes. All these things will get better version to version, so no doubt the reasons for saying no will fall. But if you are going EVF the best solution has to be removal of the mirror full stop. If the AF sensor is a separate item there is always the focus adjust issue. If the sensor has the AF sensor as well then you can do a hybrid of phase shift and contrast AF. That has to be the best as you can have fast AF and you can have a spot focus accuracy, even with the lens stopped down. So the current Sony mirror solution is just a stop gap, rather like the early Sony DSLR that had a separate sensor for Live view not the main sensor. Next stage for EVF has to be no mirror solution. Still evolution to come.

The reflex mirror would still have been developed as it is still technically the best performance solution for speed of operation. Rather the EVF was developed because the early small digital sensors did not have the space for the mirror.

But in all technical things be prepared for the human reaction of picking the point where technology is rejected. For example on cars I often think that for driver enjoyment the pinnacle of integration was @ 20 years ago, before ABS and traction control, before electric steering, and before tyres became fatter and thinner in profile, but after the introduction of electronic fuel injection. And for me in photography the modern camera, all brands, is reaching the point where I feel enough, no more wizzo features. Technically they will get better, but will we enjoy them more????

Last Modified By strawman at 25 Aug 2010 - 10:45 PM
tigertimb
tigertimb  640 forum posts United Kingdom66 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 12:51 AM

On the anti-shake issue, I think the best solution could be a combination of both.

In lens stabilisation certainly allows for the IS to exactly match the lens, and for more expensive, longer lens the potential for a better solution.
It also gives the added benefit of stabilising the image through the viewfinder, making it easier for the user and sure for the camera to focus too?

On the other hand, in body stabilisation, allows for a one off purchase of a very sophisticated system that works with all lenses, which then themselves could be cheaper. Sony missed the boat a bit price wise with the lenses still often being more expensive, but seem to be pricing recent releases more competitively.
You can now purchase cheap Sony primes for 35mm, 50mm and 85mm all of which are stabilised, in addition to stabilising all Sigma and Tamron's macro options and fast wide primes.
This is a big plus for the Sony way of doing things and even benefiting adapted old manual focus lenses.
And I love that my 50mm f1.4 is stabilised, as well as my old Minolta 85mm f1.4 (possibly the one area where it still beats the vastly more expensive and just announced Nikon 85mm f1.4 which still isn't stabilised at £1500!)

And there is a little bit of a dual system arriving for the Sony with some of the recent Sigma offerings, so for instance their 70-200mm can use the in-lense solution just by turning off the in-body.
I'd like to see this option pursued by Sony themselves with specialised fast action lenses used for tracking, like their 70-200mm f2.8 and the 500mm planned for release, with the assumption that these are where the in-lense solution is a better option, and would also include options when panning.

And I'm sure nearly every Canon and Nikon user would also welcome the addition of an in-body solution for all those lenses that aren't stabilised, particularly with the Nikon 85mm showing that stabilisation isn't a feature planned for every lens, even at the top end.

I think both systems could benefit from borrowing the best bits from the alternative system Wink

Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
26 Aug 2010 - 11:35 AM


Quote:
As for back to back, well you can spot an IS lens when you use it as it damps what you see in the viewfinder so any human judge knows which is which.

Obviously. So the people judging whether the picture is in focus don't take the photograph.


Quote:
But it is all academic as I know that as you head past 200mm the benefit of stabilising the viewfinder and AF points is a big advantage alone.

Really. The fact remains that the claims for in-body IS are similar to those made for in-lens IS (in fact Olympus claim up to 5 stops - which is dubious). I suspect that the manufacturers have their own automated testing equipment for image stabilisation performance because, without it, it would be very difficult to develop and fine tune the design. So I tend to believe their claims - particularly as they seem to fit in with my experience. The big advantage of in-body IS IMO is that, every time you buy a new body you get new up to date IS. This is an evolving technology and sticking it into lenses - which people tend to keep for decades, seems a problem. It's also the type of thing that is inclined to go wrong, I suspect, and is probably impossible to put right. So for still cameras I reckon in-body IS is the best solution.


Quote:
The reflex mirror would still have been developed as it is still technically the best performance solution for speed of operation. Rather the EVF was developed because the early small digital sensors did not have the space for the mirror.

Unlikely. The mirror was developed because it was the only way, on a film camera, of letting the photographer look through the lens. With digital you have data from the sensor - which has the added benefit that it's actually what the picture is going to look like. So inventing the flipping mirror would have been pretty pointless.


Quote:
But in all technical things be prepared for the human reaction of picking the point where technology is rejected. For example on cars I often think that for driver enjoyment the pinnacle of integration was @ 20 years ago, before ABS and traction control, before electric steering, and before tyres became fatter and thinner in profile, but after the introduction of electronic fuel injection.

Mercedes reckon that the introduction of ESP in their cars cut the accident rate by 40% - and I can believe that. Some people object to having technology over-ruling their decisions but the fact is that it can be a life-saver. ESP has saved me on a few occasions with black ice - the traction light comes on and the car remains under control. ABS means anybody can stop a car without skidding. But big fat low-profile tyres are a stupid affectation that manufacturers have had to put on their cars because the public demand them. They make the car tramline and mess up the winter and wet weather performance.

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 12:20 PM


Quote: The big advantage of in-body IS IMO is that, every time you buy a new body you get new up to date IS. This is an evolving technology and sticking it into lenses - which people tend to keep for decades, seems a problem. It's also the type of thing that is inclined to go wrong, I suspect, and is probably impossible to put right. So for still cameras I reckon in-body IS is the best solution.

Yes and no. with in-lens you can optimise for the lens itself and repair is possible I know of a person who has has their IS lens repaired and I also know of a Minolta user who was told his camera body was scrap because of an IS problem. So it depends on the manufacturer and their approach to spares and service. Lenses have a long service life so spares are provisioned for a longer time. Financially its a swings and roundabouts thing. And when you take into account the importance of video these days in-lens is increasingly being chosen by camera manufacturers including Sony.

Mercedes also found that with some of their systems the number of rear end shunts went up Smile i.e their car stopped quicker but the one behind did not. Also on tyres I agree most cars would be better with ordinary tyres, but it also depends on driving style. High sidewall tyres not only ride better they tend to be more progressive on reaching the limit of adhesion. I always think of the morris minor as an example, you can reach the limit of adhesion @ 40mph but it was so controllable. Many confuse handling and cornering speed. But fun is not always safe. And in camera terms its like AF. 99% of the time AF is better than MF, then you find a few cases where its best to switch to manual. And sometimes you manual focus because you enjoy it. Smile

Cars will get better now as they get lighter and down size engines so the tyres will come back to sensible. Less weight so less stress etc.....

Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
26 Aug 2010 - 1:45 PM


Quote: Lenses have a long service life so spares are provisioned for a longer time. Financially its a swings and roundabouts thing. And when you take into account the importance of video these days in-lens is increasingly being chosen by camera manufacturers including Sony.

Maybe, but that doesn't address the issue of IS development. I reckon if you compare a current Canon IS lens with one made 10 years ago you'll find the IS is now better - even in the unlikely event that the 10 year old IS is still working properly. In-lens IS is definitely better for video, if only because it's nice to see the stabilised image in video, but I have no interest in video on a still camera body. The NEX system is the way to go for this - having one set of lenses and separate bodies. Canon lenses may fulfill the video requirement of having in-lens IS (some of them anyway) but they don't have power zooms which is the other requirement.


Quote: Mercedes also found that with some of their systems the number of rear end shunts went up Smile i.e their car stopped quicker but the one behind did not.

ABS is a legal requirement on new cars now I believe, so this won't be a problem. Merc brakes are pretty amazing but I reckon the problem that you're referring to was probably caused by an electrical system that they used to fit a few years ago. It was a bit too clever by half and it monitored how quickly your foot came off the accelerator and onto the brake and used this to determine whether you wanted to brake hard. If you moved your foot very quickly from the accelerator to the brake and then didn't brake hard it assumed that you just weren't strong enough to push the brake pedal and it did it for you. I had this happen to me once a few years ago when my car was in for servicing and they gave me courtesy car and I was about to break gently into a roundabout when the car did an emergency stop. The guy behind swerved violently and just about missed me. They have abandoned this now.

Last Modified By Thincat at 26 Aug 2010 - 1:47 PM
stix
stix e2 Member 9924 forum postsstix vcard United Kingdom86 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 1:48 PM

You might be interested to read about the latest cameras just released from Sony here
It's by no means a comprehensive test, just an impression. We were using pre-production models and were not allowed to take any images away.
Martin

Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
26 Aug 2010 - 2:10 PM


Quote: You might be interested to read about the latest cameras just released from Sony

I think you should start a new thread for this. It's quite an important announcement and nobody's going to read it buried in a boring thread on NEX. There are still some companies who are innovating now and none of them are called Canon or Nikon.

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 2:26 PM


Quote: There are still some companies who are innovating now and none of them are called Canon or Nikon.

You are correct lets hear more about Panasonic and Olympus who re innovating and opening up new camera types rather than the same old Canikonony trilogy. The G1 and EP1 are the most significant recent launches.

Last Modified By strawman at 26 Aug 2010 - 2:27 PM
stix
stix e2 Member 9924 forum postsstix vcard United Kingdom86 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 2:38 PM


Quote: I think you should start a new thread for this.

Done Smile

Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
26 Aug 2010 - 4:11 PM


Quote: The G1 and EP1 are the most significant recent launches.

Certainly more significant than anything Canon have done in the last decade. But you're stuck in the past SM. You need to open your mind to new ideas, like Sony have done. They're taking a risk but it might work. Of course if it works, Canon will have their cover version out, unless Sony have patented it.

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 4:58 PM


Quote: Certainly more significant than anything Canon have done in the last decade. But you're stuck in the past SM. You need to open your mind to new ideas, like Sony have done. They're taking a risk but it might work. Of course if it works, Canon will have their cover version out, unless Sony have patented it.

Last 10 years, lets see, introduction of CMOS sensors into dSLRs and across the whole product range was it Sony well no as they still have some CCD, ah yes it was the non-innovative Canon. First affordable dSLR, that was not Sony it was Canon, the 300D kicked it off and the Nikon D70 started the task of improving it. Introducing Full Frame camera was it Sony, err no it was Canon. Taking the professional camera to new Levels that would be Nikon. Kicking the APS sensor size market into adding features that would be Nikon. Introducing video to SLRs well it was not Sony.

Making interchangeable lens cameras that are significantly smaller, ah step forward m4/3 companies. Introducing in-camera IS, was it Olympus or Pentax? Introducing two sensor dSLR to have fast AF and liveview, that was Olympus.

Introducing transparent mirror camera Sony, well done. So one step forwards from Sony, its good and I welcome it. But one swallow does not make a summer. and yes the offerings from Canon are not innovative or exciting this year, but they have evolved all their products. when the A700 came out Canon had the 40D Pretty equal cameras. Nikon had higher price but better D300 camera. Now Canon has the 7D and Sony has??????????

First Sony have to take risks as their market share is too small and second those whipper snappers from Panasonic and Olympus are cutting into the small amount of market Sony took from the rest. So I hope Sony have great range to push the big two of Nikon and Canon into life. If they cannot improve on their market share where do they go???? The point is you need products and innovation, and companies go in cycles, they have to. Nikon have great cameras but they tend to evolve to that level. But lets face it when they get there they are good. Canon tends to go in burst, sudden evolution then iteration. Sony do the same A100 then a series of me too's cost optimised and at long last we have new features and new design.

Its easy for Sony to grow they need to capture sales. for Canon to stand still they need to keep customers, so there is tension. Can you not see that Sony and Canon are very alike. I mean after all two weeks back you were going to EBAY your kit, what changed????

Last Modified By strawman at 26 Aug 2010 - 5:02 PM
strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
26 Aug 2010 - 5:43 PM

Whilst on the innovation topic back in 1965 a camera manufacturer introduced a semi-translucent mirror that was fixed in place and did not move. Wink and another famous camera manufacturer caught up and improved on it.... Nothing has changed.

I just thought I would find out where the idea came from....

Last Modified By strawman at 26 Aug 2010 - 5:45 PM
Thincat
Thincat  6616 forum posts
26 Aug 2010 - 7:03 PM

The introduction of CMOS into DSLRs was not innovation - Canon didn't invent CMOS. It was simple economics. CMOS is cheaper to make than CCD, and Canon were embarking on a (very successful) land grab of the embryonic DSLR market so they needed a cheap product. They didn't invent the DSLR - or even the CMOS DSLR - they just took an existing idea and marketed it at an attractive price. Likewise with FF. Introducing video into DSLRs is a dead end.

It's nice that you credit the 4/3 companies with introducing smaller interchangeable lens cameras, but whenever they're mentioned someone will rubbish them because they have more noise than the larger sensor cameras. Olympus came up with a few innovations, I think - sensor cleaning, liveview, and they were all fairly roundly rubbished by the Canon cognoscenti - until Canon decide to copy them.

There's nothing new in the pellicle camera but Sony are the first to market a digital pellicle camera. That's innovation. If it works, which it probably will, Canon will bring out their version. Just like they adopted liveview, sensor cleaning and higher definition LCDs - despite claiming at the time of their introduction (by other manufacturers) that they were unnecessary.

I was thinking of going to Olympus but I looked again at their lenses and I see that their 300mm f2.8 is now about £6000. This is a joke. My Minolta 300mm f2.8G cost £800. The change would have cost too much and, in any case, I reckon I'll wait for the A77.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.